Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 506 views

    Travel On vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    miss_cm
    Travel-On is a travel agency that sold airline tickets on commission. Arturo Miranda procured tickets through Travel-On and owed them P278,201.57. Miranda paid some amounts in cash and kind but later issued 6 post-dated checks for P115,000 that bounced. Travel-On sued to recover the check amounts. Miranda argued he overpaid and issued the checks as accommodations. The court held that checks are presumed to be for valuable consideration and Travel-On is entitled to recover as the payee unless evidence shows otherwise. No evidence indicated Travel-On was an accommodated party that realized no value from the bounced checks. Therefore, Travel-On was entitled to recover the check amounts from Miranda.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Travel On vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    miss_cm
    506 views1 page
    Travel-On is a travel agency that sold airline tickets on commission. Arturo Miranda procured tickets through Travel-On and owed them P278,201.57. Miranda paid some amounts in cash and kind but later issued 6 post-dated checks for P115,000 that bounced. Travel-On sued to recover the check amounts. Miranda argued he overpaid and issued the checks as accommodations. The court held that checks are presumed to be for valuable consideration and Travel-On is entitled to recover as the payee unless evidence shows otherwise. No evidence indicated Travel-On was an accommodated party that realized no value from the bounced checks. Therefore, Travel-On was entitled to recover the check amounts from Miranda.

    Original Description:

    Negotiable Instruments Law. Travel On vs CA case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Travel-On is a travel agency that sold airline tickets on commission. Arturo Miranda procured tickets through Travel-On and owed them P278,201.57. Miranda paid some amounts in cash and kind but later issued 6 post-dated checks for P115,000 that bounced. Travel-On sued to recover the check amounts. Miranda argued he overpaid and issued the checks as accommodations. The court held that checks are presumed to be for valuable consideration and Travel-On is entitled to recover as the payee unless evidence shows otherwise. No evidence indicated Travel-On was an accommodated party that realized no value from the bounced checks. Therefore, Travel-On was entitled to recover the check amounts from Miranda.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    506 views1 page

    Travel On vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    miss_cm
    Travel-On is a travel agency that sold airline tickets on commission. Arturo Miranda procured tickets through Travel-On and owed them P278,201.57. Miranda paid some amounts in cash and kind but later issued 6 post-dated checks for P115,000 that bounced. Travel-On sued to recover the check amounts. Miranda argued he overpaid and issued the checks as accommodations. The court held that checks are presumed to be for valuable consideration and Travel-On is entitled to recover as the payee unless evidence shows otherwise. No evidence indicated Travel-On was an accommodated party that realized no value from the bounced checks. Therefore, Travel-On was entitled to recover the check amounts from Miranda.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Travel On vs.

    CA
    GR 56169
    26 June 1992
    Third Division, Feliciano (J)
    Facts:
    Travel-On Inc. is a travel agency selling airline tickets on commission basis
    for and in behalf of different airline companies. Arturo S. Miranda had a
    revolving credit line with Travel-On. He procured tickets on behalf of airline
    passengers and derived commissions therefrom. Miranda apparently owed
    Travel-On the amount of P278,201.57 (the value of airline tickets sold to the
    former), to which Miranda paid various amounts in cash and in kind. He
    thereafter issued 6 post-dated checks amounting to P115,000 which were all
    dishonored by the drawee bank. Travel-On filed suit to recover the value of
    the checks. Miranda countered that he instead overpaid his obligations, and
    that he merely issued the checks for purposes of accommodation as he
    allegedly had in the past accorded Travel-On.
    Issue:
    Whether Miranda is indebted to Travel-On, or whether he is an
    accommodation party.
    Held:
    A check which is regular on its face is deemed prima facie to have been
    issued for a valuable consideration and every person whose signature
    appears thereon is deemed to have become a party thereto for value. Thus,
    the mere introduction of the instrument sued on, in evidence prima facie,
    entitles the plaintiff to recovery. Such presumption subsists unless otherwise
    contradicted by other competent evidence. The checks, being presented for
    payment, were thus intended for encashment. There is nothing in the checks
    (nor in other documents) that stated otherwise. Travel-On was a payee, not
    an accommodated party for the checks, as it realized no value on the checks
    which bounced. Travel-On, thus, is entitled to the benefit of the presumption
    that it is a holder in due course.

    You might also like